KARUNAMAY NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.H. Buragohain, learned CGC appearing for the respondents are heard at length.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 releasing him from service in the afternoon of 31.8.2009 on superannuation pension purportedly upon attaining the age of 57 years. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable (GD) in the S.S.B. (Group Centre), Haflong on 22.7.1971. On 14.6.1995, he had submitted a representation before the authority concerned to treat the period during which he was found to be underage in the service as boy service and to record his date of birth as on 20.8.1954 in accordance with the date of birth entered as per High School Leaving Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. His representation was eventually accepted whereupon a certificate of verification of qualifying service under Rule 32 of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules) 1972 was issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby his date of birth was accepted as 20.8.1954 by regularising the deficiency of his age as boy service. Consequential correction was also made in the seniority list dated 23.6.2003 mentioning it as 20.8.1954. However, much to his consternation, the respondent No. 3 issued the Memorandum dated 29.8.2009 intimating him that the Ministry of Home Affairs did not accept his date of birth as 20.8.1954 and that his date of birth as recorded in his documents i.e. 20.8.1952 stood as it was. This office Memorandum was followed by the impugned order dated 31.8.2009 releasing him from service purportedly on his attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) The submission of Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 20.8.1954 in his Service Book as reflected in Annexure-12 of the writ petition which has been accepted and verified to by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities could not have altered such entry for the purpose of releasing him from service on superannuation without first giving him an opportunity of hearing. It is his contention that the date of birth of the petitioner so entered is based on his matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, and there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the respondent authorities that his correct date of birth is 20-8-1952. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be quashed.